bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Bug-gnubg] Match statistics graph


From: Albert Silver
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Match statistics graph
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:50:29 -0300

> >We'll have 10 users
> >requesting 10 different graphs. Next month we'll 10 other users
> >requesting 10 other graphs. This wil go on for ever. If you give them
5
> >graphs they want 20. If you give then 20 they want 50, and so on.
> 
> Who says that we'll have to comply? 

Yes, this is the key. I don't see a big deal since I believe it is just
an issue of discussion. If it is considered worthwhile, fine, if not,
sorry friend.

> >Again, I'd rather supply the data for you to do these queries rather
> >than supplying the tool. Next month you request a graph of your
chequer
> >play errors rates as a function of the gammon price.

I think this is hyperbole. What I asked for, whether it is done or not,
is not nearly so specialized. The minute a player begins to break beyond
the usual limitations of straight play and starts learning about playing
according to score, this becomes of interest.

Since the fear is one of breaking the current records, why not add this
into a separate file? This would be standard database handling anyhow,
and should limit the trouble involved I believe. 

Chess Assistant's biggest strength (and it was the core of its purpose)
was its ability to compress information and the speed of its searches.
It was quite simply unparalleled, and could go through a 2 million game
database in seconds. One of the keys to its speed was the use of
libraries for different parts. In other words there was a Player
library, a Site library, etc. It meant that a search was not hampered by
irrelevant information. Here that score info could be stored in a
separate file and accessed according to need. That way it would be
faster, and would not imply touching pre-existing records.

I agree with much of what has been said, but still think this is basic
enough for budding/advanced players to warrant inclusion.

                                                Albert






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]